Why I am an Agnostic: The Bible as a Domain of Knowledge

"In my walk with God, I thought I found him but I was wrong. If he were there I would have found him, unless he were hiding."

I present this diagram and explanation because I have seen several times Believers lamenting that they just want to see how an atheist thinks. While I don't consider myself an Atheist, I definitely have properties of one, so the label fits well enough for practical purposes. I can't speak for everyone but this is how I think. Johns Book review and follow on Article gave me the impetus I needed to come to grips with an idea that had been bubbling on my back burner for a while. I had alluded to it several times in articles and comments but had never made it coherent. It was an internal thought process that I had never tried to put into words or explain before. Hopefully this will show, contrary to claims from believers, that I do not want god to be a trick pony, and that there is evidence that would convince me of his existence and why it is not reasonable for me to commit to the Idea of a god.
If we say that the Bible represents a domain of Knowledge (A) and it contains knowledge that we can perceive (B) as well as knowledge that we can't perceive, then there is a portion of the knowledge of A and B that we can validate. If we set about a process of validation then the parts that we cannot validate or are shown to be false will fall outside our sphere of commitment (C). As we validate, invalidate or find inconclusive, our sphere of commitment will move either inside or outside the Domain of A. There will come a time when the sphere or commitment falls far enough outside the Domain of A that the person cannot reasonably commit to the domain of A. This depends on the acceptance of the types of evidence that the person is willing to commit to. In my case, the kind of evidence that I require prevents my sphere from moving towards A. I think my requirement for evidence is pretty simple. I want a god to be non-ambiguous and/or irrefutable. Not that I want it to make me a robot, but I do want it to present its case or evidence so that it would be unreasonable for me not to accept it. I have to say that my walk with god was a lot like a walk with chance. That idea occurred to me while I was praying one day.

Now this raises the question, if I am wrong, is god justified in sending me to hell. He has the burden of proof. Compared to a god I am stupid, worthless and weak. I should be easy to convince.

Here is how to say it in a more nerdy way. It is a reprint from a comment I made in Johns follow on article.

In an inquiry, when an argument from ignorance has investigated a domain looking for a true proposition and does not find one, then the argument from ignorance turns into an argument from knowledge.
The more you search through a knowledge base, the more you know about it until you know enough about it to say whether a given proposition is true or not.

- If I had an older brother I would know about it. Robert C. Moore calls this type of reasoning Autoepistemic Reasoning.
- I did not find my dog in my house, if he were in my house, I would have found him.

Another way to say it is as follows.
D is a domain of knowledge, K is a knowledge base in D.
It has not been established that all true propositions in D are contained in K.
A is a special type of proposition such that if A were true, A would normally or usually be expected to be in K.
A is in D.
A is not in K.
For all A in D, A is either true or false.
Therefore it is plausible to presume that A is false (subject to further investigations in D).
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press. P.149.

Why I am an Agnostic: The Bible as a Domain of Knowledge

"In my walk with God, I thought I found him but I was wrong. If he were there I would have found him, unless he were hiding."

I present this diagram and explanation because I have seen several times Believers lamenting that they just want to see how an atheist thinks. While I don't consider myself an Atheist, I definitely have properties of one, so the label fits well enough for practical purposes. I can't speak for everyone but this is how I think. Johns Book review and follow on Article gave me the impetus I needed to come to grips with an idea that had been bubbling on my back burner for a while. I had alluded to it several times in articles and comments but had never made it coherent. It was an internal thought process that I had never tried to put into words or explain before. Hopefully this will show, contrary to claims from believers, that I do not want god to be a trick pony, and that there is evidence that would convince me of his existence and why it is not reasonable for me to commit to the Idea of a god.
If we say that the Bible represents a domain of Knowledge (A) and it contains knowledge that we can perceive (B) as well as knowledge that we can't perceive, then there is a portion of the knowledge of A and B that we can validate. If we set about a process of validation then the parts that we cannot validate or are shown to be false will fall outside our sphere of commitment (C). As we validate, invalidate or find inconclusive, our sphere of commitment will move either inside or outside the Domain of A. There will come a time when the sphere or commitment falls far enough outside the Domain of A that the person cannot reasonably commit to the domain of A. This depends on the acceptance of the types of evidence that the person is willing to commit to. In my case, the kind of evidence that I require prevents my sphere from moving towards A. I think my requirement for evidence is pretty simple. I want a god to be non-ambiguous and/or irrefutable. Not that I want it to make me a robot, but I do want it to present its case or evidence so that it would be unreasonable for me not to accept it. I have to say that my walk with god was a lot like a walk with chance. That idea occurred to me while I was praying one day.

Now this raises the question, if I am wrong, is god justified in sending me to hell. He has the burden of proof. Compared to a god I am stupid, worthless and weak. I should be easy to convince.

Here is how to say it in a more nerdy way. It is a reprint from a comment I made in Johns follow on article.

In an inquiry, when an argument from ignorance has investigated a domain looking for a true proposition and does not find one, then the argument from ignorance turns into an argument from knowledge.
The more you search through a knowledge base, the more you know about it until you know enough about it to say whether a given proposition is true or not.

- If I had an older brother I would know about it. Robert C. Moore calls this type of reasoning Autoepistemic Reasoning.
- I did not find my dog in my house, if he were in my house, I would have found him.

Another way to say it is as follows.
D is a domain of knowledge, K is a knowledge base in D.
It has not been established that all true propositions in D are contained in K.
A is a special type of proposition such that if A were true, A would normally or usually be expected to be in K.
A is in D.
A is not in K.
For all A in D, A is either true or false.
Therefore it is plausible to presume that A is false (subject to further investigations in D).
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press. P.149.

The Bible as Truth?

If a truth is real, shouldn't it be able to be verified? Once a truth is verified shouldn't it become a fact? Once a fact is verified as the truth, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny and always be found to be true?
If we can't verify a fact, should it be a truth? If we can't verify a truth can it really be considered a truth?
(I am updating this article with new links and references as they come to mind.)

In my post on the bible as a faulty premise I showed that the bible does not appear to be the product of one mind, a Gods mind, and there is no corroboration for it, therefore its claim to be 'god breathed' is likely to not be valid. Its validity is based on circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning and why is it important with reference to the Bible? In laymans terms circular reasoning is when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason for your claim.
Here is a link to Wikipedia that explains it and I have also provided some analogies to help explain it which follow.
- Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.
- The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.
- A childs parents tell them not to do something because they said so.
- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.
- The Quran is a revelation from God because it says it is.
- Formula one auto racing is the best kind of racing because they go faster and use complicated tracks, and any race that goes faster and is more complicated must be the best.
- A Pharmaceutical company says their drug will help this or that and is safe.

Hopefully these analogies will show why it is important not to overlook the fact that a thing should not be considered valid until there is some other way to measure it or validate it.

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable kind of reasoning in our day to day life. When we submit a resume, the employer always asks for more than one reference. In courts, people are not convicted on the testimony of one individual. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or get in the car with strangers. Should we tell them that the exception to the 'stranger' rule is when they find one that says they are honest?

If we accept the concept of circular reasoning as valid reasoning, we open ourselves up to all kinds of fraud. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year in law, medicine and insurance because circular reasoning is not a practical type of reasoning for ensuring fair and equitable circumstances for a population.

So if we shouldn’t accept the Bibles claims simply because it claims them, maybe we should find out where it came from. If it is the truth it should be verifiable and stand up to scrutiny.

What else could corroborate the bible?
Archeology, Anthropology, Textual Criticism, Biblical Criticism.

I recommend some impartial university courses on Comparative Religions and Ancient Civilizations concentrating on Near Easter Civilizations and I urge people to give a serious look at their mythology.

There is good reason to believe that the Tanakh (The Old Testament) has roots in Near Eastern Mythology. Here is a website from a scholarly author that talks about his research and his books. He is one of many since the 15th century that have observed this phenomena.

Here are some links to information (from Wikipedia) about that time period. They are not intended to prove anything but are intended to be a quick reference for a better understanding of the Bible.
Phonecia
Ugarit
Fertile Crescent
Canaan
Palestine
Israel
Judea
Assyria
Persia
Babylonia
Egypt
Flood Myths, Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible
Validity of David and Solomon, interview with archaeologist/author Neil Asher Silberman
Excerpt from Biblical Archeology Review with Israel Finkelstein from MSN Groups

Alan Dundes, a famous Folklorist, says that academics are at risk for questioning the traditional understanding of the bible. "It turns out that studying the content of the Bible could prove to be a risky proposition, definitely dangerous to ones health or professional standing"(Dundes, 20). He goes on to cite some cases. His Book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore" was published at the end of his career and a few years before his death. There is significant pressure in academia not to criticize the Bible. This is not the case in other fields of study. In other fields of study, criticism is expected and necessary to weed out the ideas that don't work from the ideas that do.

In a addition to the general information links listed above, below are some references material that are useful for a study of the Bibles validity.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

Davis, Kenneth C. 2006. Don't Know Much About Mythology: Everything You Need to Know About the Greatest Stories in Human History but Never Learned. New York. Harper.

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. 2002. The Bible Unearthed. New York. Simon and Schuster Free Press

Frazer, James George. 1975. Folklore in the Old Testament. New York. Hart Publishing

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 2003. The Bible With Sources Revealed. 2003. New York. HarperCollins.

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

Matthews, Victor H. and Benjamin, Don C. 1997. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from that Ancient Near East. New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Smith, Mark S. 2002. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Dearborn, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Interesting link, but I'm not sure of its credibility:
Torah, Ugaritic Bible

The Bible as Truth?

If a truth is real, shouldn't it be able to be verified? Once a truth is verified shouldn't it become a fact? Once a fact is verified as the truth, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny and always be found to be true?
If we can't verify a fact, should it be a truth? If we can't verify a truth can it really be considered a truth?
(I am updating this article with new links and references as they come to mind.)

In my post on the bible as a faulty premise I showed that the bible does not appear to be the product of one mind, a Gods mind, and there is no corroboration for it, therefore its claim to be 'god breathed' is likely to not be valid. Its validity is based on circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning and why is it important with reference to the Bible? In laymans terms circular reasoning is when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason for your claim.
Here is a link to Wikipedia that explains it and I have also provided some analogies to help explain it which follow.
- Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.
- The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.
- A childs parents tell them not to do something because they said so.
- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.
- The Quran is a revelation from God because it says it is.
- Formula one auto racing is the best kind of racing because they go faster and use complicated tracks, and any race that goes faster and is more complicated must be the best.
- A Pharmaceutical company says their drug will help this or that and is safe.

Hopefully these analogies will show why it is important not to overlook the fact that a thing should not be considered valid until there is some other way to measure it or validate it.

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable kind of reasoning in our day to day life. When we submit a resume, the employer always asks for more than one reference. In courts, people are not convicted on the testimony of one individual. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or get in the car with strangers. Should we tell them that the exception to the 'stranger' rule is when they find one that says they are honest?

If we accept the concept of circular reasoning as valid reasoning, we open ourselves up to all kinds of fraud. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year in law, medicine and insurance because circular reasoning is not a practical type of reasoning for ensuring fair and equitable circumstances for a population.

So if we shouldn’t accept the Bibles claims simply because it claims them, maybe we should find out where it came from. If it is the truth it should be verifiable and stand up to scrutiny.

What else could corroborate the bible?
Archeology, Anthropology, Textual Criticism, Biblical Criticism.

I recommend some impartial university courses on Comparative Religions and Ancient Civilizations concentrating on Near Easter Civilizations and I urge people to give a serious look at their mythology.

There is good reason to believe that the Tanakh (The Old Testament) has roots in Near Eastern Mythology. Here is a website from a scholarly author that talks about his research and his books. He is one of many since the 15th century that have observed this phenomena.

Here are some links to information (from Wikipedia) about that time period. They are not intended to prove anything but are intended to be a quick reference for a better understanding of the Bible.
Phonecia
Ugarit
Fertile Crescent
Canaan
Palestine
Israel
Judea
Assyria
Persia
Babylonia
Egypt
Flood Myths, Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible
Validity of David and Solomon, interview with archaeologist/author Neil Asher Silberman
Excerpt from Biblical Archeology Review with Israel Finkelstein from MSN Groups

Alan Dundes, a famous Folklorist, says that academics are at risk for questioning the traditional understanding of the bible. "It turns out that studying the content of the Bible could prove to be a risky proposition, definitely dangerous to ones health or professional standing"(Dundes, 20). He goes on to cite some cases. His Book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore" was published at the end of his career and a few years before his death. There is significant pressure in academia not to criticize the Bible. This is not the case in other fields of study. In other fields of study, criticism is expected and necessary to weed out the ideas that don't work from the ideas that do.

In a addition to the general information links listed above, below are some references material that are useful for a study of the Bibles validity.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

Davis, Kenneth C. 2006. Don't Know Much About Mythology: Everything You Need to Know About the Greatest Stories in Human History but Never Learned. New York. Harper.

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. 2002. The Bible Unearthed. New York. Simon and Schuster Free Press

Frazer, James George. 1975. Folklore in the Old Testament. New York. Hart Publishing

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 2003. The Bible With Sources Revealed. 2003. New York. HarperCollins.

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

Matthews, Victor H. and Benjamin, Don C. 1997. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from that Ancient Near East. New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Smith, Mark S. 2002. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Dearborn, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Interesting link, but I'm not sure of its credibility:
Torah, Ugaritic Bible

The Believers Reasoning Scheme

A fallacy is an argument (aka pattern of reasoning, reasoning scheme, argument scheme) that appears valid but upon analysis is shown to be invalid or misapplied. The phrase "Anything is possible" is an example of one of those reasoning schemes that seems valid but is not. Anything is not possible. This article will discuss why an appeal to possibility should be considered for refutation on its face. It will then go on to discuss the effects this fallacy has in a dialogue. Finally it will discuss the process of sound reasoning, and introduce the phenomenon I call the Believers Reasoning Scheme.

It is not possible for pigs to fly.
It is not possible for there to exist a married bachelor.
It is not possible for me to cut my left hand off with the edge of my right hand.

A person could sit for hours and think up a lot of things that are impossible if they gave it some thought. But under certain conditions is all of the above possible? At the point we introduce conditions then we are in the realm of plausible and implausible. At this point we introduce the word "Because".

It is not possible for pigs to fly because they don't have wings. But if we put a pig on an airplane then a pig can fly. A pig is flying because it is on an airplane.

When we examine what those conditions are we determine if the statement "pigs can fly" under Condition A is plausible. At that point we have to determine if Condition A is plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in an airplane? Yes. The airplane makes it plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in a boat ? No, it is not very plausible. There is nothing about a boat to suggest that it can fly or that it would change the state of our pig. The flight of our pig depends on the plausibility added by Condition A as a premise or proposition.

So how is this relevant? The following is only meant to be an example to demonstrate a point, not to resurrect the Problem of Evil.
Atheist: The God of the Bible doesn’t exist because if it did there would be no Evil.
Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?

At this point, the fallacy is in the appeal to possibility and the course of the argument could take any number of turns. But lets analyze it and see what is going on in there.

The proper course for this dialogue would be that the Atheist should provide a list of reasons why the idea of Evil is inconsistent with a God that is supposed to be all-good. Reasons would be given by the Atheist, and the Believer would either agree or disagree based on her own reasons. At that point the Believer would analyze the Atheist reasons and see if they 'fit' with existing knowledge and evidence that the Believer knows about and/or has committed to. But in the case of our example there is no prompting for reasons. We can infer that the reasons are understood by the Believer because this is an old argument and the Believer has probably encountered it before. Instead the Believers' reply is a Critical Question. Questions control a conversation (Nance). When a question is proposed in dialogue it has the potential effect of shifting the burden of proof. Questions can be used properly in a genuine expression of doubt, but it can also be used improperly if the goal is to avoid defending or refuting a claim (Walton). If the Atheist 'takes the bait', then this question becomes a "Red Herring" whether the Believer intended it or not. A "Red Herring" is an attempt to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue (Damer, 183). At this point in the Problem of Evil dialogue we are chasing the scent of the Red Herring, barking off down the field at irresolvable "possibilities".

But the characteristics of a possibility make it inherently weak. Under certain conditions, such as lack of evidence, if the affirmative is possible, the negative may also be possible. The question may be a valid expression of doubt or it may have an unexpressed premise. And in the case that there is an unexpressed premise behind the question, the question can be treated like a claim. The hidden premise in this case is the claim that God does have reasons we don't understand and that is why the Atheist perceives a Problem of Evil.

Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?
Atheist: No. Because it is just as possible that God doesn't have reasons that we don't understand. Would it be more likely that God has reasons we don't understand?

At this point the burden of proof has been properly shifted back to the Believer and now the Believer is in the uncomfortable position of producing reasons why it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand or accept your rebuttal. Of course the Believer could cry foul by asserting that you have answered a question with a question and insist that you defend it, but in that case the conversation has gotten back on course with the Atheist providing the reasons for the initial claim about the Problem of Evil. At this point in either case, the Believer must confront the Atheists premises and reason together or quit the conversation.

Reasoning is a process which requires evidence and/or data that is used to gain knowledge or make decisions. A valid conclusion depends on an hierarchy of logical relationships that depend on plausibility. A conclusion is supported by premises that are supported by warrants that are backed by data (Toulmin).

So if the Believer is to claim it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand they should meet their obligation to show why it is plausible.

The Believers Reasoning Scheme.
The following is not intended to resurrect the Problem of Evil, it is only used as an example of where I perceive the process of reasoning breaks down for the Believer in most of the dialogues I have participated in. The Reasoning Scheme of the Believer is a linked argument at the point where the conclusion of the sub-argument (in curly braces) is used to support the backing of the main argument. In fact it may be possible to plug many arguments from the Believer into the conclusion and they will fail.

Conclusion: There is only a perceived problem of Evil because of the following.
Premise1: We can't know the mind of God.
Warrant1: Because he is All-powerful, All-good, All-knowing, Present in all places etc. and we are not.
Backing1: The Bible tells us this.
{Conclusion1.a (support for Backing1): The Bible is valid
Warrant1.a: because the bible is the word of god
Data1.a: The bible says it is the word of God.}
Data1: Scripture in the Bible

In the case above, Backing1 depends on circular reasoning of Conclusion1.a; therefore it is a faulty premise. The only way to defend this premise is with corroborating evidence on why the Bible contains valid data useful to support the conclusion that "we can't know the mind of God" (Randolph). This argument depends on the Bible like the Pig depends on the Airplane. But this Pig is in a boat, so it won't fly. It has been my experience that the Believer will try all sorts of tactics to avoid letting you get back to this point. It has been my experience that this sub-argument is the premise for most Believers arguments so I look for it and press them on it.

Under certain circumstances the appeal to possibility refutes itself, and the premise that uses the Bible to support most reasoning that I have ever seen about God is faulty because it is built on the circular reasoning that the Bible gives us useful information (knowledge) about God. This includes some of the Classic Philosophical Arguments for God. The tactic of Critical Questioning can be used as a Red Herring to divert the dialogue away from the real issues or it can legitimately be used as an expression of doubt intended to press an issue for backing. However, in my opinion, unfortunately, proper Critical Questioning is too slow to be useful in an internet forum so sometimes you have go straight to the point. But it is plausible that it won't matter to the Believer that their arguments are not based on sound reason. One example of this is in an Article in Biblical Archeology Review titled "Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars". Two of the four scholars had come to realize that up to this point there is no corroboration for the bible and seem to have opted for a purely emotional commitment.

Why is this important? What's the harm?
Opting for a purely emotional commitment moves the standard for belief from being based on objective truth to subjective truth. A belief based on emotion will allow you to pick what you want to believe out of the Bible and label the rest as 'metaphor'. Any one can believe anything that suits them. For example, people will believe in God but they won't believe in "winged insects that walk on all fours" (Lev. 11:20-23). Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe in four legged insects. Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe that there was a time when there was only one language as it says in the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen.11:6-9). Using the Believers Reasoning Scheme, they should believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and learn the original language it was written in so they can meet their obligation to understand it. History has shown what can happen when a world-view is not founded in sound reason. One current example among many in the past and present is that there are millions of people that are suffering from diseases that could be helped through stem cell research and cloning. Another is the attempt to keep homosexuals from having equal rights by justifying it with the Bible, as the Believer has done in the past for women and blacks. And last but not least, young and old earth creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have tried to corrupt one of the most demonstrably useful philosophies ever devised, the scientific method.

REFERENCES
Damer, T. Edward. 2004. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. 5th ed. Belmont, California. Wadsworth Publishing

Nance, jef. 2001. Conquering Deception. Missouri. Irvin Benham Group.

Randolph, Lee. 2007. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Built on a Faulty Premise. Debunking Christianity. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/judaism-christianity-and-islam-are.html

Shanks, Hershel. 2006. Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars. Biblical Archeology Review. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3302f3.html

The Bible, New American Standard.

Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. 2 Edition. New York, New York. Cambridge University Press

Walton, Douglas N. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York. Cambridge University Press.

The Believers Reasoning Scheme

A fallacy is an argument (aka pattern of reasoning, reasoning scheme, argument scheme) that appears valid but upon analysis is shown to be invalid or misapplied. The phrase "Anything is possible" is an example of one of those reasoning schemes that seems valid but is not. Anything is not possible. This article will discuss why an appeal to possibility should be considered for refutation on its face. It will then go on to discuss the effects this fallacy has in a dialogue. Finally it will discuss the process of sound reasoning, and introduce the phenomenon I call the Believers Reasoning Scheme.

Anything Is NOT Possible.
It is not possible for pigs to fly.
It is not possible for there to exist a married bachelor.
It is not possible for me to cut my left hand off with the edge of my right hand.

A person could sit for hours and think up a lot of things that are impossible if they gave it some thought. But under certain conditions is all of the above possible? At the point we introduce conditions then we are in the realm of plausible and implausible. At this point we introduce the word "Because".

"Because, Because, Because, Because, Because...."
It is not possible for pigs to fly because they don't have wings. But if we put a pig on an airplane then a pig can fly. A pig is flying because it is on an airplane.

When we examine what those conditions are we determine if the statement "pigs can fly" under Condition A is plausible. At that point we have to determine if Condition A is plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in an airplane? Yes. The airplane makes it plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in a boat ? No, it is not very plausible. There is nothing about a boat to suggest that it can fly or that it would change the state of our pig. The flight of our pig depends on the plausibility added by Condition A as a premise or proposition.

Appeal To Possibility, aka Argument From Ignorance
So how is this relevant? The following is only meant to be an example to demonstrate a point, not to resurrect the Problem of Evil.
Atheist: The God of the Bible doesn’t exist because if it did there would be no Evil.
Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?

At this point, the fallacy is in the appeal to possibility and the course of the argument could take any number of turns. But lets analyze it and see what is going on in there.


Does It "Fit" With Existing Knowledge?
The proper course for this dialogue would be that the Atheist should provide a list of reasons why the idea of Evil is inconsistent with a God that is supposed to be all-good. Reasons would be given by the Atheist, and the Believer would either agree or disagree based on her own reasons. At that point the Believer would analyze the Atheist reasons and see if they 'fit' with existing knowledge and evidence that the Believer knows about and/or has committed to.  But in the case of our example there is no prompting for reasons. We can infer that the reasons are understood by the Believer because this is an old argument and the Believer has probably encountered it before. Instead the Believers' reply is a Critical Question.

Questions control a conversation (Nance).
When a question is proposed in dialogue it has the potential effect of shifting the burden of proof. Questions can be used properly in a genuine expression of doubt, but it can also be used improperly if the goal is to avoid defending or refuting a claim (Walton). If the Atheist 'takes the bait', then this question becomes a "Red Herring" whether the Believer intended it or not. A "Red Herring" is an attempt to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue (Damer, 183). At this point in the Problem of Evil dialogue we are chasing the scent of the Red Herring, barking off down the field at irresolvable "possibilities".

But the characteristics of a possibility make it inherently weak.
Under certain conditions, such as lack of evidence, if the affirmative is possible, the negative may also be possible. The question may be a valid expression of doubt or it may have an unexpressed premise. And in the case that there is an unexpressed premise behind the question, the question can be treated like a claim. The hidden premise in this case is the claim that God does have reasons we don't understand and that is why the Atheist perceives a Problem of Evil.

Shifting The Burdon Of Proof
Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?
Atheist: No. Because it is just as possible that God doesn't have reasons that we don't understand. Would it be more likely that God has reasons we don't understand?

At this point the burden of proof has been properly shifted back to the Believer and now the Believer is in the uncomfortable position of producing reasons why it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand or accept your rebuttal. Of course the Believer could cry foul by asserting that you have answered a question with a question and insist that you defend it, but in that case the conversation has gotten back on course with the Atheist providing the reasons for the initial claim about the Problem of Evil. At this point in either case, the Believer must confront the Atheists premises and reason together or quit the conversation.

Reasoning Is A Process
Reasoning is a process which requires evidence and/or data that is used to gain knowledge or make decisions. A valid conclusion depends on an hierarchy of logical relationships that depend on plausibility. A conclusion is supported by premises that are supported by warrants that are backed by data (Toulmin).

So if the Believer is to claim it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand they should meet their obligation to show why it is plausible.

The Believers Reasoning Scheme.
The following is not intended to resurrect the Problem of Evil, it is only used as an example of where I perceive the process of reasoning breaks down for the Believer in most of the dialogues I have participated in. Below is a template of a common form of Christian Argument. The Reasoning Scheme of the Believer is a linked argument at the point where the conclusion of the sub-argument (in curly braces) is used to support the backing of the main argument. In fact it may be possible to plug many argument conclusions from Believers in many religions into the conclusion and they will fail.

Conclusion: There is only a perceived problem of Evil because of the following.
Premise1: We can't know the mind of God.
Warrant1: Because he is All-powerful, All-good, All-knowing, Present in all places etc. and we are not.
Backing1: The Bible tells us this.
{Sub-Argument:
Conclusion1.a (support for Backing1): The Bible is valid
Warrant1.a: because the bible is the word of god
Data1.a: The bible says it is the word of God.
}
Data1: Scripture in the Bible

The Circular Form Of The Believers Reasoning Scheme
In the case above, Backing1 (Backing1: The Bible tells us this) depends on circular reasoning of Conclusion1.a (The Bible is valid); therefore it is a faulty premise. The only way to defend this premise is with corroborating evidence on why the Bible contains valid data useful to support the conclusion that "we can't know the mind of God".

This argument depends on the Bible like the Pig depends on the Airplane. But this Pig is walking in a circle, so it won't fly. It has been my experience that the Believer will try all sorts of tactics to avoid letting you get back to this point. It has been my experience that this sub-argument is the premise for most Believers arguments so I look for it and press them on it. In fact it is the fundamental principal that supports my blog; QuIRP: Quality Information Is Religions' Problem

Sometimes The "Appeal To Possibility" Refutes Itself
Under certain circumstances the appeal to possibility refutes itself, and the premise that uses the Bible to support most reasoning that I have ever seen about God is faulty because it is built on the circular reasoning that the Bible gives us useful information (knowledge) about God. This includes some of the Classic Philosophical Arguments for God.

The Tactic Of Critical Questioning
The tactic of Critical Questioning can be used as a Red Herring to divert the dialogue away from the real issues or it can legitimately be used as an expression of doubt intended to press an issue for backing. However, in my opinion, unfortunately, proper Critical Questioning is too slow to be useful in an internet forum so sometimes you have go straight to the point.

Believers Value Faith More Than Good Reasoning Technique
But it is plausible that it won't matter to the Believer that their arguments are not based on sound reason. One example of this is in an Article in Biblical Archeology Review titled "Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars". Two of the four scholars had come to realize that up to this point there is no corroboration for the bible and seem to have opted for a purely emotional commitment.

Why Is This Important? What's The Harm?
Opting for a purely emotional commitment moves the standard for belief from being based on a large degree of objective truth to a large degree of subjective truth. A belief based on emotion will allow you to pick what you want to believe out of the Bible and label the rest as 'metaphor'.

By Accepting The Believers Reasoning Scheme, Anyone Is Implicitly Justified in Believing Anything That Suits Them.
For example, people will believe in God but they won't believe in "winged insects that walk on all fours" (Lev. 11:20-23). Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe in four legged insects. Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe that there was a time when there was only one language as it says in the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen.11:6-9). Using the Believers Reasoning Scheme, they should believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and learn the original language it was written in so they can meet their obligation to understand it.

History Has Shown What Can Happen When A World View Is Not Based On Sound Reason. 
One current example among many in the past and present is that there are millions of people that are suffering from diseases that could be helped through stem cell research and cloning. Another is the attempt to keep homosexuals from having equal rights by justifying it with the Bible, as the Believer has done in the past for women and blacks. And last but not least, young and old earth creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have tried to corrupt one of the most demonstrably useful philosophies ever devised, the scientific method.

REFERENCES
Damer, T. Edward. 2004. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. 5th ed. Belmont, California. Wadsworth Publishing

Nance, jef. 2001. Conquering Deception. Missouri. Irvin Benham Group.

Randolph, Lee. 2007. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Built on a Faulty Premise. Debunking Christianity. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/judaism-christianity-and-islam-are.html

Shanks, Hershel. 2006. Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars. Biblical Archeology Review. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3302f3.html

The Bible, New American Standard.

Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. 2 Edition. New York, New York. Cambridge University Press

Walton, Douglas N. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York. Cambridge University Press.